The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and a coalition of states have filed an appeal against the remedies imposed on Alphabet’s Google following a major antitrust trial regarding its dominance in online search, reported Reuters.
Court papers submitted on Tuesday confirm that the government and most states seek to challenge the outcome of a federal court decision that found Google held a monopoly but rejected requests for more severe measures.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Access deeper industry intelligence
Experience unmatched clarity with a single platform that combines unique data, AI, and human expertise.
In 2024, Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google illegally maintained its position through contracts with device makers and service providers, including significant agreements with Apple.
The judge’s decision required Google to provide certain raw search data to competitors and banned exclusive distribution deals related to its search engine and AI products.
However, the court declined calls to force the divestiture of Google’s Chrome browser or Android operating system and did not block payments securing default search placement on new devices.
Google had already initiated its own appeal seeking to overturn the liability finding and to pause the order requiring it to share data with rival firms during ongoing proceedings.
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don’t let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalDataThe new cross-appeal from the Justice Department signals continued disagreement over whether the steps ordered by the court will be sufficient to address what authorities allege are entrenched advantages.
The legal dispute originates from a 2020 action accusing Google of violating federal competition law by entering into exclusive distribution arrangements that prevented other general search services from competing effectively.
After years of hearings, Judge Mehta’s September 2025 final order applied limited restrictions but did not implement structural separation or stricter bans sought by plaintiffs.
Both sides are now appealing aspects of the rulings, which may extend the litigation for months or even years as proceedings move through the appellate courts.
The result could influence future regulatory efforts targeting large technology companies’ business practices.
